Title text: Interestingly, on a true vertical log plot, I think the Eiffel Tower's sides would really be straight lines.

Explanation

The comic contains a chart shows several objects in the universe, both real and fictional, from farthest (top) to closest (bottom) on a logarithmic scale. The comic starts with Black Hat throwing a cat off the edge of the universe, probably a reference to Schrodinger's cat (as since it is outside the observable universe (for us), it exists in a super-position of both living and dead until we actually 'observe' it and force it to be in one of the states). The top of the universe is shown as the distance from which the oldest rays of light reach Earth.

"The comic starts with Black Hat throwing a cat off the edge of the universe, probably a reference to Schrodinger's cat"

Has the editor here never heard of the "cats always land on their feet" myth? Black Hat would appear to be testing this from the extreme. Anonymous 01:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC) (and yes, that would be WMDs)

If I am not mistaken, this is a wiki; there is no set editor. If you have a suggestion for how to improve a page, it would be apt to edit it yourself. The discussion tends to be a forum for matters that may be tangentially related to the comic, or uncertain suggestions for improving the article. Davidy²²[talk] 03:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a "(?)" in "Oort Cloud"? 108.162.212.196 02:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Because it's not known if this cloud really does exist. Many objects are assumed to be there at that vast distance to the sun, but that distance is also the reason they could not be detected from earth. Voyager 1, the farthest humanmade object from Earth, will reach that region in many thousand years. --Dgbrt (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Using identities to show that a vertical distance on this graph represents a multiplicative change in true distance from the starting point of measure, and that a vertical change (delta) in the same number of pixels represents a corresponding multiplicative factor on total height.

From the diagram it appears that a change (delta) of 550 pixels represents a change of x*1000000 therefore we can determine the base and determine the multiplicative factor for any change in pixels in the original drawing.

heightfinal = heightinitial * 1000000pixelsdelta/550
The above can be used as an equation to estimate and validate the heights on the diagram, where heightinitial is the height of the reference point in meters, pixelsdelta is the vertical change in pixels on the diagram, and is positive if height increases and negative if height decreases.

We just need to be careful that the existing heights (which in most cases have been fairly thoroughly researched) are not replaced by heights determined by their 'pixel position'. --Pudder (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, the explanation is intended to explain the comic not the real world. Before you get excited though let me explain, we may be on the same page.

Many height values can be determined from external research, and can be shown to be consistent with the graph (e.g. center of the galaxy). In these cases the researched number should be used in the height column, as clearly these numbers represent the authors intent.
There or other cases where the height is labeled. These should always be used as height, as these numbers represent the authors intent. If they are inconsistent with the scale of the graph this should be noted in the description.
There are other cases, such as where the space shuttle disintegrated, where we can research the numbers, but they are inconstant with the graph by more than an order of magnitude. Any large inconsistencies should be noted in the description, but in these cases the graph position, not the actual position should be in the height column, because this is the closest representation we can have to authors intent.

Completely agree with the basis that authors intent is priority, and with pretty much everything written above. What I was concerned about was the possibility of someone indiscriminately changing existing height values based solely on its pixel position, with no cross-checking against the real world height. I would venture that the heights of the real items on the graph are intended by Randall to be at their correct positions, but there may be exceptions. I have a personal bias here, in that I spent quite considerable time doing research on many of the heights. That said, I don't in any way expect the height entries I worked on to be taken as correct, simply that there is some degree of reasoning behind the existing heights, and to change them without checking any discrepancies would be reckless. --Pudder (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bodes Law ratio of one planet to the next but one is:

Pi^(9/4Pi): 20Pi^(3/2Pi)

thus rendering:

Mercury : Mars

Venus: Jupiter

Earth : Saturn

Mars : Uranus

Asteroids : Neptune

Not that the inner asteroids appear between Mars and Jupiter on the right hand column.

I think the "pulsar" at the top right might actually be a quasar (an active galaxy). They certainly are distant objects, so someone more versed with the wiki may want to have a look. 141.101.99.123 20:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Tools

It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working. Explain xkcd uses ads to pay for bandwidth, and we manually approve all our advertisers, and our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs. If you found this site helpful, please consider whitelisting us.